Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Pick one: Social Science (pushing Fatherhood & Marriage) or Civil Rights. . .

with one comment

By the way, I found the previous post (with blue, pink & green color coding) simply looking up who were the main speakers (“Witnesses”) for the House Ways and Means Committee’s hearing to authorize more HR 2979, Fatherhood Funding (“Innovative” of course).

Just a bit of housekeeping  here:  (from a pingback, someone co-opted the content).

~ ~ ~ ~HEY !! ~ ~ ~

Pick one: Social Science (pushing Fatherhood & Marriage) or Civil …


“Tyler Evans —

take your NAME off “AUTHOR”  on the banner & LINK on your blog (above) citing and linking MY Post.”


~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Title: Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009
Sponsor: Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] (introduced 6/19/2009) Cosponsors (39)
Related Bills: S.1309
Latest Major Action: 6/18/2010 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.

A – House of Reps H.R. 2979

Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009

I had complained that we (noncustodial or embattled in the courts mothers) hadn’t received much warning about it. OPEN CONGRESS also mentions, it wasn’t exactly in the news:

Recent News Coverage

Hmmmm, no news coverage found for this bill at this time. This means that this this bill has not yet been mentioned on a publicly-searchable news website by either its official number (for example, “H.R. 3200”) or title (for example, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”). As soon as that changes, our daily automated search across the Web will catch it and include it here. If this bill is of interest to you, you can write a letter to the editor referring to this bill by name, and if your letter is published on the Web, a link back your letter will appear here within about one day. Or, if you know of a news article about this bill to display here, email us the web address of this page and the web address of your suggested news article: // writeus@opencongress.org Our editorial team will post relevant links as quickly as possible. Thanks for helping to build public knowledge about Congress.

You can go there for the complete bill text.

A little extra boost with a Resolution from SEN. EVAN BAYH (INDIANA) & SEN. BURRIS (ILLINOIS), well-timed: (Source: http://THOMAS.LOC.GOV

59. S.RES.560 : A resolution recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their families, especially on Father’s Day.
Sponsor: Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] (introduced 6/17/2010) Cosponsors (7)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 6/21/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

60. S.RES.572

WOW — this one goes GLOBAL, seems to me that back in 1998 & 1999, they’d limited it to the U.S. ALSO, if it’s IMMEASURABLE, can we scale back on some of the multi-million$$ studies??


June 17, 2010

Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. THUNE, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BYRD, Mr. BURRIS, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. CASEY, and Mrs. LINCOLN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

June 21, 2010

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to


Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their families, especially on Father’s Day.

Whereas responsible fatherhood is a priority for the United States;

Whereas the most important factor in the upbringing of a child is whether the child is brought up in a healthy and supportive environment;

Whereas father-child interaction, like mother-child interaction, has been shown to promote the positive physical, social, emotional, and mental development of children;

Whereas research shows that men are more likely to live healthier, longer, and more fulfilling lives when they are involved in the lives of their children and participate in caregiving;

Whereas programs to encourage responsible fatherhood should promote and provide support services for–

(1) fostering loving and healthy relationships between parents and children; and

(2) increasing the responsibility of noncustodial parents for the long-term care and financial well-being of their children;

Whereas research shows that working with men and boys to change attitudes towards women can have a profound impact on reducing violence against women;

Whereas research shows that women are significantly more satisfied in relationships when responsible fathers participate in the daily care of children;

Whereas children around the world do better in school and are less delinquent when fathers participate closely in their lives;

Whereas responsible fatherhood is an important component of successful development policies and programs in countries throughout the world;

Whereas the United States Agency for International Development recognizes the importance of caregiving fathers for more stable and effective development efforts; and

Whereas Father’s Day is the third Sunday in June: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate–
    • (1) recognizes June 20, 2010, as Father’s Day;
    • (2) honors the men in the United States and around the world who are active in the lives of their children, which in turn, has a significant impact on their children, their families, and their communities;
    • (3) underscores the need for increased public awareness and activities regarding responsible fatherhood and healthy families; and
    • (4) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to supporting and encouraging global fatherhood initiatives that significantly benefit international development efforts.


(well, you can look it up. I think we get the general idea!)


The “Center for Fathers, Children, and Family Well-Being” has two highly-educated principal investigators: this is Dr. Ronald Mincy (who was a Witness from Panel 2) on H.R. 2979, which explains how I found the article surveying the effect of Father closeness on Young Adult Daughter etcetera….


Maurice V. Russell Professor of Social Policy and Social Work Practice

A.B., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT.

He is wellpublished and highly qualified for the social science work, as listed here:

Dr. Ronald Mincy joined the School of Social Work faculty in 2001; he teaches Introduction to Social Welfare Policy, Program Evaluation, and Advanced Methods in Policy Analysis. He came to the University from the Ford Foundation where he served as a senior program officer and worked on such issues as improving U.S. social welfare policies for low-income fathers, especially child support, and workforce development policies; he also served on the Clinton Administration’s Welfare Reform Task Force.

He is a member of the MacArthur Network on the Family and the Economy, Chicago, IL. He is also an advisory board member for the National Poverty Center, University of Michigan; Technical Work Group for the Building Strong Families and Community Healthy Marriage Initiatives; the African American Healthy Marriage Initiative; Transition to Fatherhood, Cornell University; the National Fatherhood Leaders Group; the Longitudinal Evaluation of the Harlem Children’s Zone; and The Economic Mobility Project, Pew Charitable Trusts.

Dr. Mincy is also a former member of the Council, National Institute of Child and Human Development and the Policy Council, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, co-chair of the Grantmakers Income Security Taskforce, a Board Member of the Grantmakers for Children, Youth, and Families.

Dr. Mincy is a co-principal investigator of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a faculty member of the Columbia Population Research Center (CPRC), and the director of the School of Social Work’s Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being.

Other staff come from Smith, Barnard, Harvard Graduate School of Education, NYU, and Kenyon.


The other co-principal investigator of Fragile Families. But THEY add work from PRINCETON, and a $17 million grant from Eunice Shriver Foundation. and plenty more, including government agencies. The word “Fragile” means UNMARRIED

Sara McLanahan

Ph.D. 1979 University of Texas, Sociology. Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University; Faculty Associate of the Office of Population Research; founder and Director of the Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Interests: Child development, child wellbeing, parenting, education, poverty, and family and community influences on the development of young children. PI on the “Fragile Families Study.

A list of other research associates makes one feel that the field to be in is CERTAINLY Sociology or Psychology these days….


The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is following a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000 (roughly three-quarters of whom were born to unmarried parents). We refer to unmarried parents and their children as “fragile families” to underscore that they are families and that they are at greater risk of breaking up and living in poverty than more traditional

The core FF Study was designed to primarily address four questions of great interest to researchers and policy makers: (1) What are the conditions and capabilities of unmarried parents, especially fathers?; (2) What is the nature of the relationships between unmarried parents?; (3) How do children born into these families fare?; and (4) How do policies and environmental conditions affect families and children?

The Study consists of interviews with both mothers and fathers at birth and again when children are ages one, three and five, plus in-home assessments of children and their home environments at ages thr

ee and five. The parent interviews collect information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and program participation. The in-home interview collects information on children’s cognitive and emotional development, health, and home environment.

Wasn’t one of John Taylor Gatto’s Seven Lesson Schoolteacher points “You Can’t Hide?

But of course it’s about the children, and NOT about Social Engineering with a view towards eventual Slavery (excuse me, Socialism)

Several collaborative studies provide additional information on parents’ medical, employment and incarceration histories, religion, child care and early childhood education. The first four waves of data are available on the web at http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/public.asp. Research findings based on data from the Fragile Families Study are available in the Fragile Families Working Paper series.

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing in Middle Childhood Study recently received a $17 million grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) to field a nine-year follow-up. This project combines the core telephone surveys, in-home study, and teacher surveys into one larger project. Data collection began in 2007 and will continue through 2010.

The Study contributes to the teaching/training mission of CRCW by hosting bi-monthly workshops and courses for faculty and students at Princeton and Columbia University. The Study has also sponsored several summer workshops at Columbia University. Finally, Princeton undergraduates use these data for their senior theses, under the guidance of CRCW faculty.

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study contributes to the policy mission of CRCW by publishing research briefs that translate working papers into information that is useful to policy makers and practitioners. The Study also provides useful information to foundations, government agencies and NGOs working to improve the conditions of children in New Jersey: see Children’s Futures and Fragile Families in Urban Essex .

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is a joint effort by Princeton University’s Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (CRCW) and Center for Health and Wellbeing, the Columbia Population Research Center and The National Center for Children and Families (NCCF) at Columbia University.

The Principal Investigators of the Fragile Families Study are Sara McLanahan and Christina Paxson at Princeton University and Irwin Garfinkel, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Ron Mincy, and Jane Waldfogel at Columbia University.

POPULATION RESEARCH, FUNDED BY FEDRAL $$ and private foundations



The Guttmacher Report on Public PolicyGuttmacher Institute

February 2005, Volume 8, Number 1
Issues and Implications

Reproductive Health Advocates and Marriage Promotion: Asserting a Stake in the Debate

By Cynthia Dailard (See below — she passed away 12/24/2006)

“Marriage promotion” represents a cornerstone of social conservatives’ domestic policy agenda, and proposals designed to promote and strengthen marriage are gaining currency at all levels of government. Since taking office, President Bush has promised to invest in marriage promotion on an unprecedented scale through his proposal to reauthorize the nation’s welfare reform law, and legislation pending before Congress would allocate substantial funding toward that end. Yet even as the president waits for Congress to act, his administration is finding ways to devote significant funding to marriage promotion activities through existing programs and funding streams.

The very question of government involvement in this area provokes strong reactions among players representing a wide range of interests and ideologies. The sexual and reproductive health community potentially has much to contribute to debates over policies and programs designed to promote or maintain the formation of intimate relationships that are healthy and stable—whether married or otherwise. To date, however, sexual and reproductive health advocates and practitioners largely have sat on the sidelines of this important social policy debate.

The Politics of Marriage

The federal government first began promoting marriage as a matter of public policy through the 1996 welfare reform law. Based on the argument that the existing welfare system provided a disincentive to marriage and undermined the traditional family structure by encouraging out-of-wedlock births among poor women, three of the four purposes of the 1996 law were designed to promote marriage. Notably, however, these marriage promotion goals permitted the states to spend their welfare block grant funds on marriage promotion activities targeting not only welfare recipients but all Americans.

Although conservatives applauded the 1996 law’s success in promoting “work over welfare,” many felt that it had failed to live up to its promise to promote marriage. Accordingly, President Bush, shortly after taking office, pledged to devote unprecedented attention and resources to marriage promotion activities. Since then, the House of Representatives twice passed welfare reauthorization proposals that would make good on the president’s promise, but the more moderate Senate’s attempts to move similar legislation fell apart over issues unrelated to marriage. Following the 2004 election, which broadened the conservative margin in Congress, both the House and Senate Republican leadership announced in January that Congress now would move swiftly to enact welfare legislation that would devote $200 million per year for “healthy marriage promotion grants” as well as $100 million per year for marriage-related research and demonstration projects.

The Bush administration, however, has not been idly awaiting congressional action on this front. According to various estimates, the administration during its first term tapped existing programs and funding streams to spend $90–200 million for dedicated marriage promotion activities and related research. Meanwhile, according to an April 2004 report by the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), a growing number of states have begun to sponsor marriage promotion activities, such as premarital counseling, school-based marriage education, and education and support services to married couples; seven states already commit a significant portion of their federal welfare block grant funding to such types of activities.

Ideology, Research & Reactions

For many social conservatives, promoting heterosexual marriage goes hand in hand with fierce opposition to the formal sanctioning of homosexual unions, in the name of “protecting” marriage. It also falls under the umbrella of a larger ideological and religiously motivated policy agenda that includes teaching young people that remaining abstinent outside of marriage is the expected standard of behavior and that supports channeling substantial funding to faith-based organizations to achieve these related policy goals.

For these social conservatives, little further justification for governmental marriage promotion may be necessary. The fact is, however, that they also can point to an established and growing body of research showing that marriage is good for individuals, particularly children. Married people are healthier, live longer and have higher earnings than single people. Children raised in married, two-parent families, moreover, are five times less likely to be poor than those raised by a single parent; they are also less likely to drop out of school or become a teen parent. Moreover, it would appear that it is not just the presence of two parents in the home that matters—children raised by their married, biological parents have better developmental outcomes than children who grow up with stepparents, and often with unmarried, cohabiting parents. (It is also worth noting, however, that high-conflict {{or VIOLENT…}} marriages, and the stress and loss of parental income associated with divorce, can adversely affect both children and adults.)

At the same time, an array of progressive constituencies either express concern about the potential form that government efforts to promote marriage may take, or question the notion of governmental involvement in this area entirely. Common concerns include that such policies have the potential to denigrate women by reinforcing outdated gender roles; may harm victims of domestic violence by encouraging them to remain in abusive relationships; and may push teens and young adults prematurely into marriages that tend to be unstable and leave them at increased risk of poverty and reduced educational attainment when those relationships dissolve. For some, marriage promotion policies simply place government in the inappropriate position of promoting a particular moral or religious viewpoint—one that sanctions some forms of intimate relationships while denigrating others.,


WordPress site in her memory

Her obit — she was only 38!

Before joining Guttmacher, Mrs. Dailard was associate director for domestic policy for President Bill Clinton, legislative assistant and counsel for Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and a fellow at the National Women’s Law Center.

She was a board member of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Mrs. Dailard was critical of a national movement to encourage abstinence-only pledges by teenagers without more comprehensive instruction in sexual health. She said those teenagers who vow chastity are less likely to use contraception when they have sex.

“It’s hard to keep a condom in your pocket when you’ve promised not to have sex,” she said.

Cynthia Boles was a native of Syosset, N.Y., and a 1990 graduate of Harvard University. She was a 1994 graduate of the University of California at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law. She lived in Washington.

Survivors include her husband of 14 years, Scott Dailard, and their two daughters, Miranda Dailard and Julia Dailard, all of Washington; her mother, Ellen Boles of Syosset; a sister, Sandra Boles of Potomac; and a grandmother.”


The Guttmacher Policy Review and its readers recently suffered a tremendous blow. On December 24, 2006, at the age of 38, one of our most prolific and accomplished authors, Cynthia Dailard, died suddenly. Trained as a lawyer and seasoned through her work on Capitol Hill and in the White House, Cynthia, who joined the Guttmacher Institute’s policy staff in 1998, was a disciplined, rigorous analyst and a compelling communicator. She seamlessly blended an authoritative knowledge of research–and an inherent feel for the power it can have in policy formulation–with an insider’s …



One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: